National Security: Pentagon May Ask For More War Funding
• "The nation's top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget," the New York Times reports. "The financing would be on top of the $130 billion that Congress authorized for the wars just last month."
The idea of a binding interdependence between China and America as the linchpin of a new global economic and political order has become a trendy one in geopolitical circles. There is much talk, for example, about Zachary Karabell's new book, Superfusion: How China And America Became One Economy And Why The World's Prosperity Depends On It. So, first of all, is the premise of the so-called Chi-America (or Chimerica) thesis a well-grounded one? What is true and not true of this premise? Why not, at least, "Amer-Chi," given that the U.S. remains, by far, a bigger and wealthier economy, and a weightier global political actor?
In any case, how should Washington try to manage the Sino-American relationship -- the political as well as the economic dimension? Given the global rise of China, was President Obama right, for example, recently to postpone a meeting in Washington with the Dalai Lama -- until after a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao? Or did this step express too much deference towards a China that still has a long way to go before rivaling the U.S. in global influence?
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: Paul Sullivan, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Michael Vlahos, Paul Starobin, Dov S. Zakheim, Ron Marks, Christian Caryl, Michael Vlahos, Michael Brenner, James Mann
The conventional wisdom at the beginning of the year was that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be sidelined by all the strong personalities among President Obama's "team of rivals" and his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Some analysts have said that doesn't seem to have happened.
Clinton has taken charge of relations with great powers China and Russia, and is a key player in reinforcing Obama's multilateral approach to international issues, one of the things that the Nobel committee cited in giving him the Peace Prize. People give her credit for giving this administration some spine. And she certainly is getting more resources for the State Department. David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote a piece in the Washington Post in August saying that Clinton is "rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions."
But we would like to know what you, the experts, think about Hillary's performance so far, what she has accomplished, and what more she could or should be doing. So what kind of report card do you give Hillary Rodham Clinton so far as secretary of State? Was she a good, or bad, choice as the nation's top diplomat?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Sam Worthington, Patrick B. Pexton, Christopher Preble, Michael F. Scheuer, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, James R. Locher III
As the repercussions from the summer's election fraud and its bitter aftermath continue to ripple through Iranian politics, it's become clear that the greatest fear of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies in the Revolutionary Guards and among hard-line clerics is a "velvet" people's revolution of the type that swept authoritarian regimes from power in Georgia with the 2003 "Rose Revolution," and in Ukraine with the "Orange Revolution" in 2004-2005.
Are those fears well-founded? Given a level of popular opposition to the theocratic regime that surprised many outside observers, especially on the part of the country's urban youth, is there a viable prospect that the regime can be swept from power by a people's revolution? Given the sensitivity and danger of any domestic group being associated with the "Great Satan," are there proactive and helpful steps -- secret or otherwise -- that the United States should take to improve the chances of a "velvet revolution"? What aspects of the velvet revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia might apply to Iran? Finally, is there likely any truth to Iranian charges that the United States or other outside players were behind the unrest surrounding the elections?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
8 responses: Paul R. Pillar, James Kitfield, Patrick Clawson, Daniel Serwer, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Daniel Byman
The announcement that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize was met with jaws dropping around the world. Does Obama's Nobel win give "momentum" -- to use the committee chairman's word -- to his efforts on such fronts as Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and nuclear disarmament? Or does the award raise expectations, already high, to a destructive degree? Will the prize end up being more of an embarrassment than an asset if Obama cannot deliver on the extraordinary goals that the Nobel committee believes he is pursuing? And is the award unjustified, given that Obama has sent more combat troops into Afghanistan and is contemplating sending more; that he has embraced the use of remote drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan, a country with which we're not at war; and that he intends to indefinitely detain some terrorist suspects without charge?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
13 responses: Michael Brenner, Stewart Verdery, James Jay Carafano, Rachel Kleinfeld, Eric Farnsworth, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Dov S. Zakheim, Michael F. Scheuer, Eric Farnsworth, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Kellie A. Meiman
It's March 1, 2010, and you're the secretary of Defense. Sanctions, negotiations and all other forms of diplomacy have failed to get Iran to renounce its nuclear program. The president has directed you and the chairman of the joint chiefs to draw up a plan for striking at Qum and Iran's many other nuclear facilities within the next 90 days. How would you advise that they be taken out, and in such a way that they can't come back online, at least not for several years? What would such a strike look like? Bunker busters? Cyber attacks? Cruise missiles and fighter bombers? Would we keep Israel out of it? How much air-, sea- and manpower would we need in place to keep the entire region from exploding? And how would we prepare for the aftermath?
Or would you advise against the mission entirely and resign in protest rather than execute it -- perhaps telling the president that such a strike would likely fail, be counterproductive to other U.S. goals in the region, and push the Iranians into a faster nuclear arms race?
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
5 responses: Shane Harris, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Wayne White
"It is past time to stop talking about starting negotiations, and time to move forward," a plainly impatient President Obama declared before convening a closed-door meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York City on Sept. 22 with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. OK, but now what? The Arab and Israeli press, in equal measure, derided the "summit" get-together, on the sidelines of a United Nations confab, as little more than a photo-op, with Abbas also drawing flak from Hamas for attending the meeting without first getting an advance agreement from Netanyahu's government to freeze all settlements construction.
As the clock ticks, is there any substantive action that Obama can and should take -- something beyond mere words -- to get these talks going, and in particular, anything to get Netanyahu to agree to a total freeze on growth in settlements? Would prospects for a deal be better served if the rickety Netanyahu government fell? Should the White House also be talking to Hamas? And just how dire are the consequences of a complete derailing of this diplomatic track -- does the world really collapse if the stalemate continues, however much Obama's prestige may suffer?
-- Paul Starobin, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Col. W. Patrick Lang, Michael Brenner, Paul Starobin, Wayne White, Michael Brenner, Dov S. Zakheim, Christian Caryl, Kori Schake, Col. W. Patrick Lang
In announcing plans to abandon the Bush administration's missile defense system in Eastern Europe, President Obama said that his alternative is more flexible and better tailored to the nature of regional threats. Specifically, Obama says that the Navy's Aegis theater missile system, which he favors, could be put into use earlier than the Bush system and is better equipped to defend against Iran's short- and medium-range missile capabilities. The system also has the added benefit of not making the Russians more paranoid at a time when the administration wants Moscow's cooperation in curbing Iran's nuclear program and reducing American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. Critics charge that Obama is appeasing an authoritarian Russia at the expense of our democratic allies in Eastern Europe and leaving the United States and NATO allies more vulnerable to Iran's missiles. Which side is closer to the truth?
-- James Kitfield, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: Michael Brenner, Henry D. Sokolski, Richard Hart Sinnreich, Daniel Byman, Andrew Bacevich, Paul R. Pillar, Michael F. Scheuer, James Kitfield, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph Cirincione, Baker Spring
Eight years ago, as the grounds of the World Trade Center and a chunk of the Pentagon lay smoldering, it was an easy if grim guess that the American homeland, sooner or later, would be attacked again by jihadist terrorists. But at this point, no such attack has occurred, and the question ripe for debate is why. Razor-sharp U.S. intelligence? The bringing of the fight to the "home turf" of the terrorists in Afghanistan and the tribal borderlands of Pakistan? The emergence of Iraq as a more convenient place to kill Americans than America itself? A calculated decision by the terrorists not to wage a second wave of assaults? Sheer luck?
And what can and should be done, at home and abroad, to make sure that no second attack occurs, ever?
-- Patrick B. Pexton, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Joseph J. Collins, Steven Metz, Patrick B. Pexton, Michael Vlahos, Michael F. Scheuer, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner
Afghanistan is escalating faster than Iraq draws down, creating a dilemma for President Obama. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has nearly doubled since last year, from 32,000 last fall to more than 63,000 today. Now reports swirl that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new U.S. commander in Kabul, may ask for another 40,000, bringing the total to beyond 100,000.
Meanwhile, the Taliban is inflicting record casualties, with August the deadliest month on record for coalition forces; last month's Afghan elections were marred by widespread fraud; and polls say that the majority of the U.S. public believes the war is not worth fighting. Many observers draw the parallel to Iraq at its worst and to George W. Bush's "surge" there of reinforcements who are widely, albeit controversially, credited with turning that conflict around.
Should Obama gamble that more troops and new tactics will turn the tide, as Bush did in Iraq, and how many more troops would it take? Or does Obama risk his presidency by getting bogged down in another Asian land war in support of an increasingly undemocratic government? And what's the alternative to an "Afghan surge" -- perhaps, as conservative columnist George Will wrote last week, withdrawing and relying on special forces, intelligence and drones just to monitor the Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., NationalJournal.com
19 responses: Col. Douglas Macgregor, Steven Metz, George Ward, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Michael F. Scheuer, Steven Metz, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Wayne White, Steven Metz, Michael F. Scheuer, Bing West, Dov S. Zakheim, Michael Brenner, Ron Marks, Rachel Kleinfeld, Chris Seiple, Bruce Hoffman, Josef Joffe
The dog days of summer are a natural time to get caught up on reading, so we'd like to reprise a question we posed during the winter holidays and ask what's on your current reading list. Histories, biographies, reports and novels are welcome. Please explain their relevance to national security and why you think they're important and interesting. Shorter posts and links are encouraged. Keeping with the slower pace of the season, we'll again leave the site open for commentary for two weeks. We'll resume weekly topical discussions after Labor Day.
To kick things off, your moderator notes that he's been reading "Joint Publication 3-13: Information Operations," which includes the military's guidebook for cyber war. The entire report is significant because it reflects the military's experience with counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. The doctrine envisions the "information environment" as equally important to the physical world when it comes to fighting, and defeating, adversaries.
-- Shane Harris, NationalJournal.com
20 responses: Shane Harris, Michael Vlahos, Adm. Thad Allen, Stewart Verdery, Evelyn N. Farkas, Shane Harris, Ron Marks, James R. Locher III, Eric Farnsworth, Daniel Byman, Shane Harris, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Steven Metz, James Jay Carafano, Loren Thompson, Rachel Kleinfeld, Daniel Serwer, Daniel Serwer, Dov S. Zakheim, Michael Brenner
